School:

Marcus High School

College Affiliation:

Texas A&M Commerce

Years Judging/Coaching:

6

Frequency of Judging:

I have not judged much this year; mainly WSD and Congress.

Speaker Point Scale:

27-30 (lower for egregious incidents)

Stylistic Preferences:

I want to hear the resolution debated; that's the entire purpose of the round. I prefer traditional value/criterion LD cases. The quality of arguments is more important than the quantity. Speed is ok if I am on the e-mail chain and all arguments are included in the chain; otherwise, no spreading

Things not to run when I am the judge:

Pre-standards. K's. Theory just for the sake of running theory when an actual violation has not occurred in the round. As for impact calculus- do not run extinction arguments; they're unrealistic and I will vote probability over magnitude when given the option. I won't automatically discount plans and CP's but if there is something else in the round that is a viable option for me to vote on, I will. Topicality arguments need to consist of an actual topicality violation. I will vote it down if you run this nonsense topicality argument that the aff needs to narrow down the focus of the resolution instead of debating the exact wording.

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

hi folks,

* DON'T BE A PRICK, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLEIST, ETC. i'll literally vote you down idc.

* plz offer trigger warnings to the room if your case/piece contains sensitive topics.

Competitive History:

2 Years Middle School, 4 Years Athens HS (Split Policy / IE's). 4-time UIL State Qualifier, 5-time TFA State Qualifier, 5-Time National Qualifier.

3 Years UNT Speech and Debate (Split NFA-LD, NPDA, and IE's.) 7-time NFA National Qualifier, 3-time AFA National Qualifier. Top 32 NFA-LD Nationals (2021), Top 12 DI (AFA Nationals), POE Quarterfinalist (AFA Nationals). 

I've coached and competed in (literally) every event so I promise I'm well-rounded.

POLICY-

Overall, I consider myself to be a tab judge, but I will default to policymaker if not given framing for the round. I like good debate with lots of clash, so please don't repeat a 1AC and 1NC for all your speeches. Please PLEASE give voters and some impact calculus so I don't have to do judge intervention as that's not actual debate. Below is a more detailed paradigm, but if you have specific questions please feel free to ask :)

On the specifics,

Policy Affs - If you want to go the normal straight-up policy route that's totally chill, I just expect the solvency mechanism to be there and functional to actually address the harms/contentions (obviously). I also expect a lot of impact calc and proving why the policy will be effective and overall good.

K Affs - I was a K debater in HS, still am in college and I'm cool with them. Performance/Poetry/etc. is cool with me, just make sure to explain the significance of the performance and how it interacts with whatever you're attempting to solve/address. If it's a lot of specific or academic literature and jargon, make sure to explain it, and don't assume I automatically know who the author is or the specific topic you're discussing. Just make sure to explain not only for my clarity but also for the best clash in the room. Mainly well-versed in Fem Theory, Queer Theory, Puar, and Decol literature.

T - I'm fine with T. I tend to default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. I also tend to prefer in round abuse over potential abuse. Again though, just do what you do and prove why it's the most important in the room. I don't really buy RVI's but if you can somewhere combat my strong opposition to it or prove abuse in some way I can maybe buy one.

DA - love a good DA. Just make sure the entire shell is there or I'm not able to vote on it.

K - refer to K Aff's. Again, I'm totally good with them, just make sure to explain the literature and the alt. Contextualization is key.

CP - The only thing I really have to say for cp's is there has to be a net benefit to the CP or there's no point in reading one.

Again, just have a good debate, do what you do and I'll judge whatever. HOWEVER, I will not tolerate sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, OR ANY OTHER "ic's" and "ist's" in a room. If you are rude, talk over your opponent, or are just straight-up problematic, your speaks will reflect it, and possibly the ballot as a whole.

FINALLY, Yes I want to be on the email chain, gavvylott@gmail.com

LD-

Do whatever you're comfortable and best at! Skim through the above paradigm to get a sense of what I'm used to. I did LD Debate a little in high school and occasionally consult for it now, so I know the basics. Just make sure there's substantial clash, fleshed-out arguments, and you're telling me how I'll be voting. The same rules on appropriate behavior apply!

Interp-

I'm not entirely sure what an Interp paradigm looks like, but know I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. so I won't vote you down on the content of your piece (unlike some other people <3). Just give a good performance. Also, please offer a trigger warning to the room if your piece contains sensitive topics, I think that's only fair to everyone in the room.

do the things friends :)